5.  A list of the applicant parties is appended.
6.  At the relevant time Mr Gianluigi Gabetti was the chairman of the two applicant companies and Mr Virgilio Marrone was the authorised representative (procuratore) of the applicant company Giovanni Agnelli & C. s.a.a.
7.  On 26 July 2002 the public limited company FIAT (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) signed a financing agreement (prestito convertendo) with eight banks. That contract was due to expire on 20 September 2005 and stipulated that, should FIAT fail to reimburse the loan, the banks could offset their claim by subscribing to an increase in the company’s capital. Thus, the banks would have obtained 28% of FIAT’s share capital, while the holdings of the public limited company IFIL Investments (which subsequently, on 20 February 2009, became Exor s.p.a., the name by which it will be referred to hereafter) would have decreased from 30.06% to about 22%.
8.  Mr Gabetti wished to obtain legal advice on the best way to ensure that Exor remained the controlling shareholder in FIAT, and to this end he contacted a lawyer specialising in company law, Mr Grande Stevens. He considered that one possibility would be to renegotiate an equity swap (that is, a contract allowing a share’s performance to be exchanged against an interest rate, without having to advance money), dated 26 April 2005 and based on approximately 90 million FIAT shares, concluded by Exor with an English merchant bank, Merrill Lynch International Ltd, which was due to expire on 26 December 2006. In Mr Grande Stevens’s opinion, this would be one way to prevent the launch of a takeover bid with regard to the FIAT shares.
9.  Without mentioning Merrill Lynch International Ltd for fear of breaching his duty of confidentiality, on 12 August 2005 Mr Grande Stevens asked the National Companies and Stock Exchange Commission (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa – “the CONSOB”, which in the Italian legal system, has the task, inter alia, of protecting investors and ensuring the transparency and development of the stock markets) whether, in the scenario he envisaged, a takeover bid could be avoided. At the same time Mr Grande Stevens began making enquires with Merrill Lynch International Ltd about the possibility of amending the equity swap contract.
10.  On 23 August 2005 the CONSOB asked Exor and Giovanni Agnelli to issue a press release providing information on any initiative taken in the light of the forthcoming expiry of the financing agreement with the banks, any new fact concerning FIAT and anything that might explain the market fluctuations in FIAT shares.
11.  Mr Marrone alleges that he was on leave on that date. He had informed Mr Grande Stevens of the CONSOB’s request and had sent him a copy of it. Mr Marrone submits that he was not involved in drafting the press releases described in paragraphs 13 and 14 below.
12.  Mr Gabetti submits that on 23 August 2005 he was in hospital in the United States. He had received a draft press release and had contacted Mr Grande Stevens by telephone; the lawyer had confirmed to him that, given the significant number of elements that remained uncertain, renegotiation of the equity swap contract could not be considered as a relevant and currently available option. In those circumstances, Mr Gabetti approved the draft press release.
13.  The press release issued in response [to the CONSOB’s query], approved by Mr Grande Stevens, merely indicated that Exor had “neither instituted nor examined initiatives with regard to the expiry of the financing contract” and that it wished “to remain FIAT’s reference shareholder”. No mention was made of the possible renegotiation of the equity swap contract with Merrill Lynch International Ltd, which, in the absence of a clear factual and legal basis, the applicants considered merely as one possible future scenario.
14.  The Giovanni Agnelli Company confirmed Exor’s press release.
15.  From 30 August to 15 September 2005 Mr Grande Stevens continued his negotiations with Merrill Lynch International Ltd, exploring the options for amending the equity swap contract.
16.  On 14 September 2005, in the course of an Agnelli family meeting, it was decided that the draft text being studied by Mr Grande Stevens ought to be submitted for approval by the Exor board of management. On the same day, the CONSOB received a copy of the equity swap contract and was informed of the negotiations under way with a view to using that contract to enable Exor to acquire FIAT shares.
17.  On 15 September 2005, in execution of the decisions taken by their respective boards of management, Exor and Merrill Lynch International Ltd concluded the agreement on amending the equity swap contract.
18.  On 17 September 2005, in response to the question posed to it by Mr Grande Stevens on 12 August 2005 (see paragraph 9 above), the CONSOB indicated that, in the scenario envisaged, there was no obligation to launch a takeover bid.
19.  On 20 September 2005 FIAT increased its share capital; the new shares were acquired by the eight banks in compensation for the sums owed to them. On the same date the agreement amending the equity swap contract took effect. In consequence, Exor continued to hold a 30% stake in FIAT.
20.  On 20 February 2006 the CONSOB’s Markets and Economic Opinions Division – Insider Trading Office (Divisione mercati e consulenza economica – ufficio Insider Trading – hereafter the “IT Office”) accused the applicants of breaching Article 187 ter § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 24 February 1998. That article, entitled “Market Manipulation”, provides:
“Without prejudice to criminal penalties where the conduct amounts to an offence, any person who, through means of information, including Internet or any other means, disseminates false or misleading information, news or rumours of a kind to provide false or misleading indications concerning financial instruments shall be liable to an administrative penalty ranging from 20,000 to 5,000,000 euros (EUR).”[1]
21.  According to the IT Office, the agreement to amend the equity swap had been concluded or was in the process of being concluded before the press releases of 24 August 2005 were issued, and accordingly it was abnormal that they had contained no mention of it. The applicants were invited to submit their defence.
22.  The IT Office then transmitted the file to the CONSOB’s Administrative Sanctions Directorate (ufficio sanzioni amministrative – hereafter, “the Directorate”), accompanied by a report (relazione istruttoria) dated 13 September 2006, which set out the evidence against the accused and their arguments in reply. According to that report, the arguments submitted in their defence by the applicants were not such as to enable the file to be closed.
23.  The Directorate communicated this report to the applicants and invited them to submit in writing, within a thirty-day period that would expire on 23 October 2006, those arguments that they considered necessary for their defence. In the meantime, the IT Office continued to examine the applicants’ case, by obtaining oral statements and analysing the documents received on 7 July 2006 from Merrill Lynch International Ltd. On 19 October 2006 it transmitted a “supplementary note” to the Directorate in which it stated that the new documents examined by it were not such as to alter its conclusions. On 26 October 2006 the applicants received a copy of the supplementary note of 19 October 2006 and its appendices; they were given a further thirty-day deadline within which to submit any comments.
24.  Without communicating it to the applicants, the Directorate presented its report (dated 19 January 2007 and containing its conclusions) to the Commission – the CONSOB proper –, that is, to the body responsible for deciding on possible penalties. At the relevant time the Commission was made up of a chairman and four members, appointed by the President of the Republic on a proposal (su proposta) from the President of the Council of Ministers. Their term of office was for five years and could be renewed only once.
25.  By resolution no. 15760 of 9 February 2007, the CONSOB imposed the following administrative fines on the applicants:
-          EUR 5,000,000 in respect of Mr Gabetti,
-          EUR 3,000,000 in respect of Mr Grande Stevens,
-          EUR 500,000 in respect of Mr Marrone,
-          EUR 4,500,000 in respect of the company Exor,
-          EUR 3,000,000 in respect of the company Giovanni Agnelli.
26.  Mr Gabetti, Mr Grande Stevens and Mr Marrone were banned from administering, managing or supervising listed companies for periods of six, four and two months respectively.
27.  The CONSOB held, in particular, that the file showed that on 24 August 2005, date of the impugned press releases, the plans to maintain a 30% stake in FIAT’s capital on the basis of renegotiation of the equity swap contract with Merrill Lynch International Ltd had already been studied and were being put in place. It followed that the press releases falsely represented (rappresentazione falsa) the situation at the time. The CONSOB also emphasised the positions held by the persons concerned, the “objective gravity” of the offence and the existence of malicious intent.
28.  The applicants applied to the Turin Court of Appeal seeking to have these penalties set aside. They alleged, inter alia, that the CONSOB’s rules were illegal, since, contrary to the requirements of Article 187 septies of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 (see paragraph 57 below), they did not comply with the principle of an adversarial examination of the case.
29.  Mr Grande Stevens further noted that the CONSOB had accused and punished him for being involved in publication of the press release of 24 August 2005 as the executive director of Exor. Before the CONSOB, he had argued unsuccessfully that he did not have that role and that he was merely a lawyer and consultant for the Agnelli group. Before the appeal court, Mr Grande Stevens maintained that, since he was not an executive director, he could not have taken part in the decision to publish the impugned press release. In pleadings of 25 September 2007, Mr Grande Stevens requested that, should the appeal court consider the documents placed in the case file to be insufficient or unusable, it summon witnesses for questioning “on the facts set out in the above-mentioned documents”. He did not indicate clearly in those pleadings either the names of those witnesses or the circumstances in respect of which they were to give evidence. In pleadings of the same date, Mr Marrone named two witnesses whose statements would prove that he had not taken part in drafting the press releases, and stated that the appeal court could, if necessary (ove occorresse), question them.
30.  In judgments deposited with the registry on 23 January 2008, the Turin Court of Appeal reduced the administrative fines imposed by the CONSOB in respect of certain of the applicants, as follows:
- EUR 600,000 in respect of Giovanni Agnelli s.a.a.;
- EUR 1,000,000 in respect of Exor s.p.a.;
- EUR 1,200,000 in respect of Mr Gabetti.
The heading of the judgments delivered in respect of Mr Gabetti, Mr Marrone and Exor S.p.a. indicated that the court of appeal had met in private (riunita in camera di consiglio). The “procedure” part of the judgments issued in respect of Mr Grande Stevens and Giovanni Agnelli & C. S.a.s. mentioned that the parties had been summoned to the deliberations (disposta la comparizione delle parti in camera di consiglio).
31.  The length of the ban on assuming responsibility for the administration, management or supervision of companies listed on the stock exchange was reduced from six to four months in respect of Mr Gabetti.
32.  The court of appeal dismissed the applicants’ other complaints in their entirety. It noted, inter alia, that even after the file had been transmitted to the Directorate, the IT Office had been entitled to continue its investigative activities, as the 210-day deadline provided for the CONSOB’s deliberations had not been binding. Furthermore, the adversarial principle was complied with if, as in the present case, those charged had been informed of the new evidence obtained by the IT Office and had had an opportunity to submit their replies.
33.  The court of appeal also noted that it was true that the CONSOB had both imposed the penalties provided for by Article 187 ter of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 and reported the case to the prosecuting authorities, alleging that the criminal offence described in Article 185 § 1 of the same decree had been committed. Under the terms of this provision,
“Anyone who disseminates false information, carries out simulated transactions or uses other ploys (artifizi) which are objectively capable of triggering a significant change in the value of financial instruments shall be punishable by between one and six years’ imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 to 5,000,000 euros.”
34.  According to the court of appeal, those two provisions had as their subject-matter the same conduct (the “dissemination of false information”) and pursued the same aim (to prevent market manipulation), but differed with regard to the situation of risk alleged to have been generated by this conduct: in respect of Article 187 ter, it was sufficient in itself to have given false or misleading indications concerning financial instruments, while Article 185 further required that that information had been such as to trigger a significant change in the price of the instruments in question. As the Constitutional Court had indicated in its order no. 409 of 12 November 1991, it was open to the legislature to punish illegal conduct both by a pecuniary administrative sanction and by criminal penalties. In addition, Article 14 of Directive 2003/6/EC (see paragraph 60 below), which invited the member States of the European Union to apply administrative sanctions against persons responsible for manipulating the market, contained in turn the phrase “without prejudice to the right of Member States to impose criminal sanctions”.
35.  On the merits, the court of appeal observed that it was clear from the case file that the renegotiation of the equity swap had been examined in minute detail at the relevant date and that the conclusion reached by the CONSOB (namely, that this plan already existed one month prior to 24 August 2005) had been reasonable in the light of the established facts and the conduct of the persons concerned.
36.  As to Mr Grande Stevens, it was true that he was not an executive director of Exor s.p.a. Nonetheless, the administrative offence punishable under Article 187 ter of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 could be committed by “anyone”, and therefore by a person in any capacity whatsoever; Mr Grande Stevens had indeed participated in the decision-making process which had led to publication of the press release in his capacity as a lawyer consulted by the applicant companies.
37.  The applicants appealed on points of law. In the third and fourth grounds of their points of appeal, they alleged, inter alia, that there had been a breach of the principles of a fair hearing, enshrined in Article 111 of the Constitution, because, in particular: the investigative phase of the CONSOB proceedings had not been adversarial in nature; there had been a failure to transmit the Directorate’s report to the accused; in the applicants’ view, it had been impossible to file pleadings with or be heard in person by the Commission; the IT Office had continued its investigation and transmitted a supplementary note after expiry of the time-limit set for that purpose.
38.  By judgments of 23 June 2009, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 30 September 2009, the Court of Cassation dismissed their appeals on points of law. It considered, in particular, that the principle of an adversarial examination of the case had been complied with in the proceedings before the CONSOB, noting that the latter had indicated to the applicants the acts with which they were charged and taken account of their respective defence submissions. The fact that the applicants had not been questioned and that they had not received the Directorate’s conclusions had not been in breach of that principle, since the constitutional provisions regarding a fair hearing and the right of defence were applicable only to judicial proceedings, and not to proceedings to impose administrative sanctions.
39.  Under Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998, the applicants’ impugned conduct could be the subject-matter not only of an administrative sanction, imposed by the CONSOB, but also of the criminal penalties provided for in Article 185 § 1, cited in paragraph 33 above.
40.  On 7 November 2008 the applicants were committed for trial before the Turin District Court. They were accused of having stated, in the press releases of 24 August 2005, that Exor wished to remain FIAT’s reference shareholder and that it had neither initiated nor examined initiatives with regard to the expiry of the financing contract, although the agreement amending the equity swap had already been examined and concluded, information that had been withheld in order to avoid a probable fall in the FIAT share price.
41.  CONSOB applied to be joined to the proceedings as a civil party, a possibility open to it under Article 187 undecies of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998.
42.  After 30 September 2009, the date on which the judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal on points of law against the penalties imposed by the CONSOB was deposited with the registry (see paragraph 38 above), the applicants requested that the criminal proceedings against them be discontinued, by virtue of the non bis in idem rule. In particular, at the hearing of 7 January 2010, they argued that the relevant provisions of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 and Article 649 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP” - see paragraph 59 below) were unconstitutional, on account of their alleged incompatibility with Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
43.  The representative of the prosecuting authorities opposed this objection, alleging that “double proceedings” (administrative and criminal) were imposed by Article 14 of Directive 2003/6/EC of 28 January 2003 (see paragraph 60 below), which the Italian legislature had transposed by enacting Articles 185 and 187ter of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998.
44.  The Turin District Court did not immediately rule on the ancillary question of constitutionality raised by the defence. It ordered an expert report describing the fluctuations in FIAT shares between December 2004 and April 2005 and evaluating the effects of the press releases of 24 August 2005 and the information made public on 15 September 2005.
45.  By a judgment of 21 December 2010, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 18 March 2011, the Turin District Court acquitted Mr Marrone on the ground that he had not been involved in the publication of the press releases, and also acquitted the other applicants on the ground that it had not been proven that their conduct had been such as to trigger a significant change in the financial markets. It noted that the fact that the press releases contained false information had already been punished by the administrative body. In the court’s view, the applicants’ impugned conduct had, probably, been aimed at concealing the renegotiation of the equity swap contract from the CONSOB, and not at increasing FIAT’s share price.
46.  The court held that the ancillary question of constitutionality raised by the applicants was manifestly ill-founded. It noted that Italian law (section 9 of Law no. 689 of 1981) prohibited “double proceedings” (doppio giudizio), criminal and administrative, in respect of the “same act”. However, Articles 185 and 187 ter of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 did not punish the same act: only the criminal provision (Article 185) required that the conduct be such as to cause a significant change in the value of financial instruments (it referred to judgment no. 15199 of the Court of Cassation (Sixth Section), of 16 March 2006). In addition, application of the criminal provision required the existence of malicious intent, while the administrative provision was applicable as soon as culpable conduct was established. Moreover, the criminal proceedings which had followed the imposition of the financial penalty provided for by Article 187 ter of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 were authorised by Article 14 of Directive 2003/6/EC.
47.  As to the case-law of the Court cited by the applicants (Gradinger v. Austria (23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C), Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009), Maresti v. Croatia (no. 55759/07, 25 June 2009) and Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03, 16 June 2009)), it was not relevant to this case, since it concerned cases where a single act had been punished by criminal and administrative penalties and where the latter had a punitive element and could include a custodial sentence or (as in the Ruotsalainen case) were for a sum higher than the criminal fine.
48.  The public prosecutor’s office appealed on points of law, alleging that the offence with which the applicants had been charged was one “of danger” (reato di pericolo) and not “of damage” (reato di danno). It could therefore be committed even in the absence of damage having been sustained by the shareholders.
49.  On 20 June 2012 the Court of Cassation allowed in part the prosecuting authorities’ appeal on points of law and quashed the acquittal of the companies Giovanni Agnelli and Exor, and those of Mr Grande Stevens and Mr Gabetti. However, it upheld the acquittal of Mr Marrone, given that he had not taken part in the impugned conduct.
50.  By a judgment of 28 February 2013, the Turin Court of Appeal convicted Mr Gabetti and Mr Grande Stevens of the offence set out in Article 185 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998, considering it highly probable that, had the false information included in the press release of 24 August 2005 not been issued, the value of FIAT’s shares would have fallen much more sharply. However, it acquitted the companies Exor and Giovanni Agnelli, holding that no criminal acts could be imputed to them.
51.  The court of appeal held that there was no appearance of a violation of the ne bis in idem principle, thus endorsing the main thrust of the Turin District Court’s reasoning.
52.  According to the information provided by the Government on 7 June 2013, Mr Gabetti and Mr Grande Stevens appealed on points of law against that judgment, and the proceedings were still pending at that date. In their appeals, these two applicants relied on a violation of the ne bis in idem principle and asked that an ancillary question of constitutionality be raised in respect of Article 649 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
...